Sonia Sotomayor and Abortioin (Guest Appearance by Sean Hannity--Guns Blazing)

It is leftist Democrats--NOT Republicans or even conservatives--who have a "litmus test" on abortion. They are fanatics on the subject, which is the only thing that explains their EXTREME attitude that it "infringes" on the sacred "right" to abortion to even prohibit abortionis in the last three months (where the country has ALWAYS disagreed with them). Don't dobut me on this. I know what I am talking about. Planned Parenthood, and most other leftists, have fanatically opposed ANY restrictions on abortion, even up to the moment of birth. Yes, that means President Obama, Pelosi, and th erest have supported INFANTICIDE. Nope. This is NOT a matter of "opinion". If you believe it is infanticide to kill a baby once the umbilitical cord is cut, you can argue a thousand years and not explain why a different creature is being killed right before the umbilical cord is cut. This is fanaticism--immoral at that--at its worst. (Yes, I know that SOME local democrats are allowed to be "pro-life" on a LOCAL level, so long as they do not threaten the national agenda of the left.).


Well, Sonia Sotomayor's only challenge on the left is proving that she meets the fanatical litmus test leftist Democrats have on abortion. She is radically left on almost everything, as far as I can tell (at this early stage), but her record on abortion is fairly unclear. No, it does not matter is she is Catholic (I don't know that, even after reading the Wikipedia entry on her, although I assume most Puerto Ricans are Catholic). Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi pretends to be Catholic, hypocrite that she is, and still is as fanatically pro-abortion as a person can be. Nevertheless, it makes the left a little nervous (think David Souter as a Bush 41 apponteee who made the right correctly nervous) that Sotomayor has not really committed herself on abortion.


Not to worry (you leftists out there). I am confidenct, despite the impropriety of it, that Sotomayor will affirm her commitment to Roe v. Wade. She knows, as well as I do, the leftist litmus test on abortion, and she knows that she cannot afford to lose any support on the left. At best, she will not be as fanatically pro-abortion as Obama or Pelosi. She did vote to uphold the Bush Administration rule against taxpayer money going to foreign groups who promote/perform abortions--even as taxpayer money continued to go to Planned Parenthood (perhaps the most evil, dishonest organization to ever exist in this country--at least outside the Ku Klux Klan, the Communist Party, William Ayers' The Weather Undergound, and similar orgainzations dedicated to undermining the very foundations of this country). From a leftist/Obama point of view, Sotomayor may be "moderate" on abortion.


I remind you that the "moderate" position on abortion that the left professed (liarsand hypocrites that most are--especially in Planned Parenthood) in about 1969 is regarded (by the media and the left--redundancy again) as the present EXTREME right wing position. Yes, and I lived through it and know, pro-abortion activists (most of them) were saying that only INSANE fanatics were proposing "abortion on demand". They were saying all reasonable persons favored some restrictions on abortion, so long as the "moderate", reasonable view prevailed that reasonable exceptions ("health of mother, deformity, rape, etc.) were put into the law. Indeed, if the left had not PROVEN that they oppose democracy, when it conflicts with their agenda, we would probably have arrived at some "compromise" in this country allowing certain things (morning after pills? Fairly broad "health" exceptions--sometimes including "mental health"?) . Now I would not have favored such a "compromise", since I rightly knew that the left was always trying for unrestricted abortion by having the "exceptions" eat up the rule. I said so (correctly), even as pro-abortion advocates were lying through their teeth claiming that NO ONE was advocating basically unrestsricted abortion--saying that even as they were pushing the courts to impose unrestricted abortion on the country by judicial fiat. In a recent speech, Obama used the leftist "party line" about how the propoents and opponents of abortion should reach "common ground"--by which he meant that pro-life people shoud accept unrestricted abortion (the EXTREME leftist position), while agreeing that "unwanted" pregnancies should be reduced. Leftists have argued that same thing from the beginning, and it is just a device to SHUTP UP pro-life people while pursuing fanatic pro-abortiion policies.


So Sotomayor MAY (don't count on it) be more "moderate" than Obama and Pelosi. So what. She is a radical leftist, with little intellectual depth, on seemingly everything else. For example, she is quoted as saying--from the bench in the course of a leftist attempt to force your electric bill up by forcing electric companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--that "glolbal warming is killing the planet, not over centuries, but in a short period of time". That is, of course, objectively a LIE. The woman is stupid. (Did I just call Al Gore stupid? Damn right, to the extent he is not dishonest for personal gain.)


Expect this to be the "defense" of Sotomayor: Things like her seeming lack of total fanaticism on abortion (which she may have, but has not yet exhibited) show that Sotomayor is "mainstream" and "moderate". Bull. All indications are that she is as radically leftist as they come. Even the most radical leftist may seemingly depart from leftist orthodocxy in MINOR ways.


If Alito or Roberts had said that the life experiences of "white males" made their judgment more likely to be right than the limited life experiecnes of African-Americans and Hispanics, they would have been HUNG (not just refused confirmation). Since Sotomayor merely picked on white males--otherwise saying the very same thing in reverse--she will get away with it (absent more revelations and/or a truly bad performance in the hearings).


That said, abortion appears to be one area--absent more information and/or caving to leftist pressure--where Sotomayor may plausibly claim to be a "moderate" (whehter she is or not, and even though "modrate" in this context only means that she MAY not suscribe to the fanatically extreme, pro-abortion position that now rules the Democratic Party on a natiinal level--a position very far from the "moderate" position asserted about 1970).


P.S. I heard Sean Hannity assert today, before I turned him off (as I always do after Rush), that Sotomayor has shown extreme leftist views on the Second Amendment. Now Sean Hannity does NOT know Constitutional Law and history (trust me on this). I do. What was Sotomayor's "crime? Well, she asserted that it is "settled law" that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, but only to the Federal Government. In a way (not the way Sotomayor meant it, since she only meant it as an argument to reach the result she wanted), Sotomayor was not only correct, but making a CONSERVATIVE argument. It is not just the Seocnd Amendment. The ENTIRE Bill of Rights (yes, the First Amendment too) originally only applied to restrict the Federal Government. This was true until the 1930's, when the Roosevelt Supreme Court began to incoporate the Bill of Rights (item by item) into the 14th Amendment--which DID apply to the states. However, before 1866, the 14th Amendment did not exist. Yes, before 1866, and really until the Supreme Court shoehorned individual Amendments of the Bill of Rights inot the Constitution, a state could Constitutionally (Federal Constitution) have a STATE RELIGION. Yes, and this is an absolute fact and not opinion, under our original Constitution there was no argument about "prayer in the schools". The whole First Amendment ("CONGRESS shall make no law") waws a restriction ONLY on the Federal Goveernment. Yes again, the ACLU LIES on our Foundres setting up a "total separation" of church and state. They did no such thing, as the whole thing was a matter of STATE policy, and the whole point was to keep the Federal Government from growing out of control. The people who insisted on the Bill of Rights were right about that worry--no people in history have been more right--but we have gone down that road anyway. "But", you say, if the Bill of Rights has been incorporated in the 14th Amendment, is not the Second Amendment now applicable to the states? Well, not exactly. It is NOT--despite Sotomayor--"settled law". What the Supreme Court did is incorporate the Bill of Rights in the 14th Amendment ONE BY ONE--although if one of the Bill of Rights were incorporated, it was dones so COMPLETELY, to the full extent it applies to the Fedreal Government, and will all Supreme Court interpretatioins that apply to the Fedeeral Government. Does that make any sense? OF CURSE NOT. That means the Supreme Court asserted the "right" to pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights were IMPORTANT, and which were not important enough to apply to the states. The whole thing never made any sense (incporporating certain of the Bill of Rights to aplly to the states to the same extent they applied to the Federal Government). Again, the First Amendment specifically says CONGRESS shall make no law. How can you twist that to apply to the states, even through the 14th Amendment? It was a naked power grap by the Supreme Court. "Okya", you say, "but it has been done. Is not Hannity right that logically the Second Amendment should be applied to the states just like the Firt Amendment? Yes, you coul d say that is a logical thing to say NOW. And Sotomayor surely did not mean to challenge the idea of "incoproating" the Bill of Rights in the 14th Amendment. However, as a "federalist" (which I do not think either Hannity or Limbaugh truly are, although they lean more in that direction than any leftists), I don't have nearly the problem with state and local regulation of guns that I have with Federal regulation of guns. That is why I say, IN A WAY, I agree with Sotomayor. The Second Amendment was NOT meant to apply to the tates originally. Neither were most of the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights--in fact the whole Bill of Rights was aimed at the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Am I saying that I would be perfectly fine with Texas limiting "free speech" (lefatists, of course, already do it on every level)? Well, it IS "settled law" --if WRONG--that the Firt Amendment applies to Texas, even though it was not originally meant to so apply. But I would have no problem going back to the original intent. Without the Civil War, there would never have been a 14th Amendment. Would that be so bad? I, personally, don't think so. I would have preferred a more specific Amendment: "No governmental authority shall discriminate against any person on the basis of race, national origin, or religion." Too bad it does not read that way. The opening that has left for the left is way too big. It has cost us dearly in terms of what the "Founders" intended.